Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
"Jeff Layman" writes:

Aside (not to you): God. British botanical loons, again. So
ignorant that they pluralise the obviously Greek-derived word
"mycorrhiza" to "mycorrhizae". And the OED confirms that it is
precisely a British botanical delusion.

Seems that mycorrhizae is in common use. Probably far more so than
mycorrhizas. (Would you prefer "mycorrhizata"?)

I think that you will find that "mycorrhiza" was both singular and
plural until some, er, considerably sub-genius decided to Latinize it.
The earliest plural of that form I can see is "pileorrhize".

Why the hell that usage couldn't have continued is beyond me. But
the whole way that the British botanical loons attempt to abuse the
English language is ridiculous.

After all, the very concept of singularity and plurality is completely
alien to mycorrhiza - yes, there is the concept of a single species
versus multiple species, but you need to say "species of mycorrhiza"
to disambiguate it anyway. And then the number is associated with
the word "species" :-)


English is popular because it doesn't appear to need many rules, and adapts
readily. Things get accepted as the norm without much thought if their
usage is very common. How many times do you hear the word "datum"? Not too
many, so "data" is now used in the singular.

Nothing is simple; what about "stigma"? Botanically, the common plural
usage is "stigmas". But if applied to witchcraft, it is "stigmata"? Why?
they are both from the same singular word (although you never hear its use
in the singular with respect to the latter. Heh - I can see us ending up
with "a stigmata". Or worse, "a stigmatum"...).

I see that you used the word "singularity" to describe a concept (relating
to mycorrhiza). There you are - that use is rare today. Talk about
"singularity" and in popular use most people would assume you are talking
about a black hole!

Perhaps that's where you want to put the botanical loons...

--
Jeff
(cut "thetape" to reply)